ukraine and the message loud and clear, page-9

Archer

Glad you asked :)

I am NOT an MD. But I understand the importance of communication and sending the right message to the people who pay you...whether they are stakeholders/customers/shareholders/clients.

The mechanics of this process are 'simple' and applicable in all situations where people 'communicate'

Upon expiry of the Discovery option I would have updated the market and explained the situation. I would have emphasised what the company 'was' doing...'is' doing.
The resons why it expired. I would have further delineated the detail surrounding the deal.
Once the second option lapsed there was no excuse to...'let it drift' with no explanation.

I DEFINITELY wouldnt have 'gone quiet' or put the shutters up. WRONG MOVE.

I would ensure that ALL shareholders were responded to PROMPTLY. No excuses. No preferential treatment. No ego displays regarding angry/impatient investors.

My approach? The customer is ALWAYS right. Thats ALWAYS. Smart management embrace the challenging ones...win them over and you are well on the way. Its basic stuff. Its what professionalism is centred around.

Re Rozna I would not have been so 'vague' or non committal about an outcome. It sent a message of timidity to the market. It wasnt MANAGING imo....it was 'reacting to' a deliberation. Of course Uran had to wait on the outcome. They just didnt demonstrate strong leadership imo with their response.

Re Uzbekistan I would not have stated developments and then 'gone quiet'...again...bad move. 'Demonstrated' 'again' a lack of 'following through' on plans....

Re Ukraine politics I would have stated the situation 'as it was evolving'
The company needed to demonstrate transparency and honesty...AND...demonstrate they had confidence in their other projects.
Ukraine was left for extended Google searches by well researched shareholders. It shouldnt have been.

Re Rozna, I would have disclosed much much more regarding what the company was endeavouring to do...not go quiet.

Re Pribram I would have stated the fantastic opportunity it was/is to 'demonstrate' Urans committment to the Czechs and the clean up AND make a few $$$ AND access Rozna for processing. I would have applied for mining permits IMMEDIATELY....not 12 months later..and then state it could be 'some time before they come through'
I would have stated that it wasnt necessarily a big $$ deal but it was a tangible project and a 'starting' point for Uran to 'demonstrate' its grasp of technology and their approach to the clean up and uranium production.

If I was MD I would not have left the Chairman all by his lonesome at the AGM in early 2007....when very real questions needed to be answered and accountability for failed timelines needed to be dealt with.

It was 'another' 'demonstration' of questionable management and leadership imo.

Re the placement to 'sophisticated investors'?
Yes it was an opportunity for Uran to get a couple of million so I dont ignore that. But at what? 30 cents below market price?
From levels around $1.20 to 90 cents?
And with this 'placement' where was the initiative 'demonstrated' (see PLV comments re todays announcement and how these 'placements' can work for shareholders) to deal with Junior selling out almost immediately after that?

It was ordinary management. Junior could have sold his shares to these guys AND taken pressure off the share price...considerably.
The placement would have taken half of his shares. The share price in turn would have been much stronger AND better placed for the 'delayed' SPP that was done 'finally' at 45 cents.

Archer I could go on...and on...you should know that ;)

Is 'that' enough for you?